Is the UN going to have an explicit resolution that orders all Iranian & Syrian military personell (training, arming and aiding and even acting in S. Lebanon) out of Lebanon and stop sending Huzbollah murderers under mask of "Lebanese freedom fighters"?

So far Iranian Hitler Ahmadinejad has succeeded in hiding as a mere "supporter", Why is UN's Arabist Kifi Annan so hypocritic in not exposing him?

stop spamming up this subforum. you smell.

No let him be. I like him. He's an Original.

No let him be. I like him. He's an Original.Thanks, so are you.

Is the UN going to have an explicit resolution that orders all Iranian & Syrian military personell (training, arming and aiding and even acting in S. Lebanon) out of Lebanon and stop sending Huzbollah murderers under mask of "Lebanese freedom fighters"?

So far Iranian Hitler Ahmadinejad has succeeded in hiding as a mere "supporter", Why is UN's Arabist Kifi Annan so hypocritic in not exposing him?
The Shia and muslim populations in Lebanon have a natural close connection to fellow Arab and shiite countries. Have for centuries. I say it's obvious Syria needs to come back and protect Lebanon from the jews. They leave and the Israelis send commandos into Lebanon and spark war. The goal being drawing the US into a holy war against Syria and Iran. Israel is not worth it.

. The goal being drawing the US into a holy war against Syria and Iran. Israel is not worth it.

it WILL happen, but not quite yet. look for late 2008, and a massive terrorist attack.

republicans need something to attach scaremongering to, in order to remain in control of the executive branch.

it WILL happen, but not quite yet. look for late 2008, and a massive terrorist attack.

republicans need something to attach scaremongering to, in order to remain in control of the executive branch.
you could be right Devil

I would say in 2007 though.

And i would not be suprised if israeli troops find WMD manufactureed by Iran in a Hezbollah bunker!!!!!!!!!

uh huh.

And i would not be suprised if israeli troops find WMD manufactureed by Iran in a Hezbollah bunker!!!!!!!!!

Too late.

Israel already says that Hezbollah manufactures their own chemical WMDs, and since Hezbollah is supposedly an off-shoot of Iran, not Lebanon, then it means Iran supplies em with em. And aren't there a hundred Iranian revolutionary guards of the shah over there helping em? ;)

- N

who gives a crap why is it ok that America supplies Israel with weapons but Iran and Syria cannot supply it's own brothers with weapons? Is it a question of ethics? If so, war is war and war is wrong!

Iran came out THE winner.

Iran came out THE winner.


I beg to differ there are no winners fullstop, only the undertakers & architects.

The clean up bill for iran in lebanon is 2 billion dollars, & they have promised to pay rent for a year to anyone homeless.

Iran has money, oil money, but what people forget is that, it is there only source of income, no tourist industry, no hi tech or manufacturing industry, & a big population to look after, we are not talking about toy countries like the saudis or kuwait or oman, we are talking about a big country with a large population to look after.

My own guesss is iran & hezbollah will reneg on financial promises.

Will a coalition of North Lebanese and Europeans occupy South Lebanon and follow the orders and demands given by USA as too how to implement the occupation of South Lebanon?

The USA's current foreign policy is under the control of people who can not see a distinction between US interests and the Interests of the more hawkish half of Israelis so any US directed occupation of South Lebanon is a defacto Israeli occupation of South Lebanon. The USA dominates the UN and Kofi Annan but Kiwi and US UN ambasador John Bolton are outraged that the UN has any independence at all from the policy of a UN that strictly serves the will of USA/Israel.

The Shia/Shiite Lebanese are believed to be 40 to 45 percent of the Lebanese population but the rules from the Tiaf accords do not let them have a representaion in the Lebanese government equal to their numbers. Any demand by South Lebanese that Lebanon become a real democracy in which the vote of a South Lebanese person is as powerfull as the vote of a Maronite North Lebanese person would restart the Lebanese civil war. Any demand by the North Lebanese that the Lebanese government should have military control over South Lebanon would also restart the civil war because the North undemocratically dominates the Lebanese by means of the distortions of democracy set out in the Tiaf accords as a compromise for peace to end the civil war. An unwritten part of the current form of the compromise for peace is that South Lebanon shall maintain it's own military in the form of Hezbollah and Amal millitias. Hezbollah is South Lebanon and South Lebanon is Hezbollah. You can not supress Hezbollah without supressing South Lebanon.

Quoting myself from an earlier Sciforums thread:

10-23-05, 03:12 AM
Who was Hariri? He was a deal maker, Peace maker, out for him self, charming Kleptocrat thief, who's foreign backer was Saudi Arabia. He worked closely with the Syrians for many years but was rumored to be about to join with Syria's enemies.

Lebanese History: http://www.nmhschool.org/tthornton/mehistorydatabase/civil_war_in_lebanon.htm
without history the present can not be understood. Every faction was allied with Syria at some time. Lebanese Civil war may have had more shifting alliances than any other war in recorded history. The Afghan civil war is close though.

At minimum the 1943 power sharing agreement and the 1989 Taif accords should be understood.

Hariri was a Suni.

From 1943 to the Civil war in 1975 the semi democracy gave the most power to Maronites and the second most power to Sunis.

After Tiaf the new semi democracy devides power between Christians and Muslims more or less evenly but still reserves the two most powerfull positions to a Maronite and a Suni. Christians are 32% of the population so it is not democratic to give them half the power. Shia out number Sunis, It is not democratic that the Sunis get to hold the Muslim power position. Anyway post Tiaf is more democratic than pre Tiaf. The Lebanese Tiaf agreement never played out the way it was intended because most Maronites boycotted the first post Tiaf election and Syria used their absense to elect a slate of pro Syrian politicians who they made moves to ensure the continuance of pro-Syrian electoral victories.

Hariri was one of those pro-Syrian politicians.

Lebanon 1991 population estimate:
Shia Muslim 38%
Suni Muslim 23%
Maronite Christian 20%
Other Christian 12%
Druze 7%
There are more Palestinians born in Lebanon than there are Druze but Palestinians born in Lebanon are not citizens and can not vote. If your mother was Lebanese and your father Palestinian you are Palestinian and can not vote but if your mother was palestinian and your father Lebanese then you are Lebanese and can vote.

Who benefitted from Hariri's death?
It does not seem that that Syria does but they could have miscalculated. The Maronites Seemed prepped and ready to go with their protesets and accusations when Hariri died. It almost seemed that their leaders had advance knowledge of Hariri's impending death. Then again maybe everybody expected Syria to kill Hariri and Maybe the Maronites were getting ready for protests without any consideration for hariri's death when he happened to be killed.

Hariri's son suspects Syria and is pleased with the UN report as a first step. That carry's a lot of weight with me.

As for the UN on the other hand, I have lost what little trust I had in them becaue of their support for the USA/France coup against democracy in Haiti. The USA and France were also quick to blame the Syrians for Hariri's killing and also seemed to have advance knowledge of the killing.

Don't believe accusations against Syria in Hariri's killing if the evidence is secret or not understandable.

This is where to read the UN Mehlis Report Full transcript: http://www.champress.net/english/index.php?page=show_det&id=725
I have not read it yet.

who gives a crap why is it ok that America supplies Israel with weapons but Iran and Syria cannot supply it's own brothers with weapons? Is it a question of ethics? If so, war is war and war is wrong!

Isreal is a country. Iran is a country. As such other countries can supply them with arms. Isreal gets alot from the US. Iran buys from Russia. Fair game.
The problem is that Iran is supplying arms to a terrorist group.
The US took alot of heat for this when they were supporting the Contra rebels.

Iran saw that Hizb are not as effective as previously thought - not as an actual deterrent, nor as a psychological one, since their "14000 rockets on the border" taboo has been broken - and that shit is a strawman.

* 100:1 ratio of rockets-per-dead-Jew
* 10:1 kill ratio
* Hizb unable to stop IDF's advance ever-further into Lebanon
* popular support in Lebanon falling for Hizb (needless unauthorized destruction of the country, Hizb proving that they are foreign agents...)

Iran can no longer rely on Hizb to be a deterrent for a US+Israel+??? attack on Iran's nuke facilities. this is why they've started preparing their army for war - they see that a big confrontation is inevitable... the world is united against Iran (the disagreements only lie in how large should the carrot and the stick be), and the world can't be blackmailed any longer with Hizb on Israel's border... even Arab countries are condemning Iran

so who is the winner in this war?
i think Israel and Arab countries are using different criteria when measuring their success.
for Hizb it was enormous success because they were not 100% obliterated
for Israel it was so-so performance because instead of having a knockout, they won by points....which is something they are not used to
when comparing at damage and death, Israel clearly did more than Hizb. but it was a loss in terms that instead of having a typical amazing victory a-la-1967 to which Israel and the world have gotten used to, it was more of a "regular" victory where you simply "win"

when Hizb supporters and Israel supporters bicker about who won, they aren't really talking about the same things

and the biggest loser of this war, besides the dead, is Iran

I would wager that Isreals forces had for more restrictions put in place than in 1967. If they had taken the gloves off things would have been very different.

crazy151drinker, in that you are correct and the fact that Olmert didn't use his troop deployments in a timely manner, he waited to long to call up his reserves, and then just before he should have delivered the knock out blow he stopped everything for 36 hr, and that gave the Hezbullah a respite and the U.N. time to screw thing up.

Iran saw that Hizb are not as effective as previously thought - not as an actual deterrent, nor as a psychological one, since their "14000 rockets on the border" taboo has been broken - and that shit is a strawman.

* 100:1 ratio of rockets-per-dead-Jew
* 10:1 kill ratio
* Hizb unable to stop IDF's advance ever-further into Lebanon
* popular support in Lebanon falling for Hizb (needless unauthorized destruction of the country, Hizb proving that they are foreign agents...)

Iran can no longer rely on Hizb to be a deterrent for a US+Israel+??? attack on Iran's nuke facilities. this is why they've started preparing their army for war - they see that a big confrontation is inevitable... the world is united against Iran (the disagreements only lie in how large should the carrot and the stick be), and the world can't be blackmailed any longer with Hizb on Israel's border... even Arab countries are condemning Iran


no, US puppets are united against iran. if there is a war, you can bet that china will support iran(not so much because of iran, but because of rivalry with america) the deciders of any conflict will be the china and russia.

The problem is that Iran is supplying arms to a terrorist group.
The US took alot of heat for this when they were supporting the Contra rebels.

Which, ironically, the U.S. made the money to support the Contra rebels in Nicaragua by selling arms to the Iranians, who were still an enemy of ours at the time. Not to mention the arms we sold to them were to counter the arms and WMDs we sold to Iraq to combat the Iranians.

And we even gave them more arms to release our captured citizens from our embassy in Iran and then later also gave them more arms to release more people captured by Hezbollah. People complain about Carter, yet it was Reagan that caved in all those times, not to mention played both sides against each other while we did shady business not just there, but elsewhere as well. Ask Fox News' Oliver North about it sometime. Heck, ask Dick Cheney about him funding the Iranians too with his offices in Tehran. The same with Donald Rumsfeld funding Iraq with arms and WMDs as well.

"Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive." - Sir Walter Scott

- N

no, US puppets are united against iran. if there is a war, you can bet that china will support iran(not so much because of iran, but because of rivalry with america) the deciders of any conflict will be the china and russia.

Th US wont want to go down that route. I still think war with Iran (regime change) will not be very likely. But a strike against Irans nuclear sites is a possibility, even though such a strike won't really achieve much since Iran will just have more incentive to openly persue Nukes in the future.

Which, ironically, the U.S. made the money to support the Contra rebels in Nicaragua by selling arms to the Iranians, who were still an enemy of ours at the time. Not to mention the arms we sold to them were to counter the arms and WMDs we sold to Iraq to combat the Iranians.

And we even gave them more arms to release our captured citizens from our embassy in Iran and then later also gave them more arms to release more people captured by Hezbollah. People complain about Carter, yet it was Reagan that caved in all those times, not to mention played both sides against each other while we did shady business not just there, but elsewhere as well. Ask Fox News' Oliver North about it sometime. Heck, ask Dick Cheney about him funding the Iranians too with his offices in Tehran. The same with Donald Rumsfeld funding Iraq with arms and WMDs as well.

"Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive." - Sir Walter Scott

- N

Not to mention the current flim flam with terrorist organisations.
Mujahideen-e-Khalq (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0831-23.htm)
US support for MeK (http://www.cpt.org/archives/2005/jul05/0034.html)

Which, ironically, the U.S. made the money to support the Contra rebels in Nicaragua by selling arms to the Iranians, who were still an enemy of ours at the time. Not to mention the arms we sold to them were to counter the arms and WMDs we sold to Iraq to combat the Iranians.

We sleep in a very complicated bed...
No doubt the Soviets and Chinese do as well...

Th US wont want to go down that route. I still think war with Iran (regime change) will not be very likely. But a strike against Irans nuclear sites is a possibility, even though such a strike won't really achieve much since Iran will just have more incentive to openly persue Nukes in the future.
The stick WITH the carrot, will DO it.

The stick WITH the carrot, will DO it.

Did not work for Saddam and he was easier than Ahmedinejad.

Did not work for Saddam and he was easier than Ahmedinejad.
hey, at least with saddam you knew what you were dealing with.
mr. iran is portrayed as kind of a lunatic here in europe. do you have any info on him that i could have, sam? pm would be fine.

hey, at least with saddam you knew what you were dealing with.
mr. iran is portrayed as kind of a lunatic here in europe. do you have any info on him that i could have, sam? pm would be fine.

Have you seen his interview on 60 minutes?
http://markedmanner.blogspot.com/2006/08/c-spans-unedited-60-minutes.html

sorry, I just checked the videos; looks like good ole CSPAN didn't like the videos being used without permission. Even the youtube ones are gone!

My point: Because Arabists never care about "occupation", they are only about anti Israel fascism.

My point: Because Arabists never care about "occupation", they are only about anti Israel fascism.Death to Israel! Death to Capitalist Warpigs! Long Live the Rebels of Iraq! God Bless IED'S!!

nickelelodeon, the best is for the Iranian citizens to rise up, hopefully.